ArticleAffective science2020
Audiovisual Representations of Valence: a Cross-study Perspective.
Article in Affective science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural Representations of Emotions in Visual, Auditory, and Modality-Independent Regions Reflect Idiosyncratic Conceptual Knowledge.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- More than labels: neural representations of emotion words are widely distributed across the brain.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
- The nature and neurobiology of fear and anxiety: State of the science and opportunities for accelerating discovery.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Sinful pleasures and pious woes? Using fMRI to examine evaluative and hedonic emotion knowledge.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022Article
- Predictive processing models and affective neuroscience.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2021Article
- At the Neural Intersection Between Language and Emotion.Affective science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hedonic valence describes the pleasantness or unpleasantness of psychological states elicited by stimuli and is conceived as a fundamental building block of emotional experience. Multivariate pattern analysis approaches contribute to the study of valence representation by allowing identification of valence from distributed patterns of activity. However, the issue of construct validity arises in that there is always a possibility that classification results from a single study are driven by factors other than valence, such as the idiosyncrasies of the stimuli. In this work, we identify valence across participants from six different fMRI studies that used auditory, visual, or audiovisual stimuli, thus increasing the likelihood that classification is driven by valence and not by the specifics of the experimental paradigm of a particular study. The studies included a total of 93 participants and differed on stimuli, task, trial duration, number of participants, and scanner parameters. In a leave-one-study-out cross-validation procedure, we trained the classifiers on fMRI data from five studies and predicted valence, positive or negative, for each of the participants in the left-out study. Whole-brain classification demonstrated a reliable distinction between positive and negative valence states (72% accuracy). In a searchlight analysis, the representation of valence was localized to the right postcentral and supramarginal gyri, left superior frontal and middle frontal cortices, and right pregenual anterior cingulate and superior medial frontal cortices. The demonstrated cross-study classification of valence enhances the construct validity and generalizability of the findings from the combined studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.